Constitution Halts Sheriff

39 comments on “Constitution Halts Sheriff
  1. The Gonch says:

    Makes me wish I’d bought a house. Nobody in Ireland should pay another cent on their mortgage. We can starve these bankers out.
    Brilliant!

  2. What-me-worry? says:

    Exceptional to be sure. I hope the concept of education catches on. Bravo!

  3. BB Rebozo says:

    Brilliant, wonderful! Ah the intelligent civility, I love it!

    This is the problem, the people being served don’t know the law and the poor folks carrying out the orders don’t know the law. The government is run by a bunch of crooks, yet the whole foundation of the laws are still on the books!

  4. Jimbo says:

    If a man’s home is inviolable then what’s he doing mortgaging it? If it’s been promised to another party, or pledged as collateral, then they need to look at other parts of the law which allow wronged parties to uphold private contracts. If the law doesn’t cover that I’ll eat a hat.

  5. Sirial says:

    Bankers steal so much money I am sure they can afford to adjust this little annoying hickup.

  6. Tritone says:

    Dudes!

    This guy woke me up, made my breakfast, took me by the hand ,
    and walked me to “SCHOOL” !
    THE CELTIC TIGER IS BACK! YEEEEES!

  7. evolutis says:

    just to keep the soccer game going here’s a ball of interest to kick around.

    “In contract law, “impossibility” is an excuse for the nonperformance of duties under a contract, based on a change in circumstances (or the discovery of preexisting circumstances), the nonoccurrence of which was an underlying assumption of the contract, that makes performance of the contract literally impossible.”

    So if the banksters though obvious banking linkages brought about an international situation wherein access to markets resulted in lose of job, which in turn triggered mortgage defaults … u do the tap dance??

  8. Alf says:

    @wisefool

    If you have the intelligence and courage to question it… the system becomes
    a house of cards which blows away in the wind.

    Congratulations wisefool a great piece of work.

  9. Sandra says:

    24 carat gold. The guy is a superhero.

  10. Mother Earth says:

    But the moral of this story is : If you got a few strong men on your side, injustice becomes to expensive..

  11. snotglue says:

    A nice legal kick in the nuts!

  12. GGees says:

    Common law, or Law of the land exists in all former countries which were colonised by UK. This includes the USA. The so called “sovereign man” movement is an attempt by the people to protect themselves from “statute” law which are statutes passed by Governments EG traffic violations etc. Statute law is tried under British maritime or “admiralty” law and is a commercial law which originally governed ships and their cargos entering a port. The maritime terminology is still in use EG when in a commercial court you enter the “dock”
    Use google search to find out more about common law versus statute law, its very interesting. Great to see that Irishman use this knowledge!!

  13. Apocalypto says:

    Looks like fun.

  14. Danny Cunnington says:

    @Jimbo, I hope you have an edible hat. You have common law and you also have contract law. The common law always trumps the contract law. This is because contract law is essentially a legal fiction and is only binding to those parties who “volunteer” to be bound by it.

    The first definition of a person is the man or the woman. The second definition is the official title concerning legal status. Legal means that which is written. The legal person is an entity existing only as an idea that a particular legal framework has, but is predicated on the first definition of an actual person.

    A quick check of cause and effect means that the common law person has to trump the second entity known legally as a person. (It couldn’t exist without it).

    This bamboozling of the ignorant masses has been done for centuries. It relies on ignorance and the suppression of knowledge. The internet has changed that.

    The mortgage that the home owner signed for was created by his collateral pledge of a property lien. The loan application is the causation that enables the funds to come into existence. The main problem with this is that for the banker, there is no “consideration of contract”. The only thing of supposed, fictitious value is the loan application.

    The general rule of any trade is “buyer beware”. In this case it’s the same thing. It’s the banker’s decision that based the funds as a book entry against the loan application. It’s the banker who must bear the loss. After all, the whole concept of charging interest for loans is justified by “allowing for bad debt”, in a force Majure situation. (Evolutis called it “Impossibility”). Force Majure actually means “circumstances beyond reasonable control”.

    Therefore the loan contract is dead in the water due to default. The contract failure is a direct result of the banker failing in his responsibility of due diligence because they have not properly researched common law when it comes to property of an actual person.

    The more cynical would add that “they hadn’t counted on been sussed out after getting away with it for so long.”

  15. John Robb says:

    Video of the year, so far! Heck, it already tops last year’s best video(Schiff’s 90 minutes of representing the one percent) as it’s content is less abstract, more essential. The argument elaborated in it’s 15 minute confrontation bares the basic argument of most all confrontation currently happening about the planet. I hope it goes viral!

    http://youtu.be/2XiYUYcpsT4 …”Unless”-the Lorax

  16. Citizen119 says:

    Terrific video. The guy knew his stuff, and the ‘official’ didn’t.
    It’s more difficult on the mainland because the corporate officials
    impersonating the ‘Police’ don’t know much about Common Law.

    For lots more information go to http://www.yourstrawman.com

  17. nama rama says:

    Blank Of Ireland – This way out
    “Who else wants help and guidance through the process of Legally and LAWfully challenging the bank from taking Our Home’s, Closing Down Our Businesses, Locking Us Up & Stealing Our Money?

    http://www.blankofireland.com/

    featured here by Max 2 years ago.

  18. John Robb says:

    “I’m not going to check the Constitution whatsoever. It’s nothing to do with me.”
    -11min20sec

    Priceless!

  19. Specky4eyes says:

    Amazing! Can’t wait to see how this turns out.

  20. william says:

    Correct me if I am wrong. These guys signed mortgages, and bought the real estate with the funds they received from the banks. The mortgages stated that the banks had a claim on the property, until the mortgage was paid off. The buyers of the real estate certainly should have understood this at the time.
    If the buyer of the real estate is in arrears on his mortgage, how is it that you believe that it is unfair for the bank to foreclose. Do you seriously believe that it is fair to all the people who will want to buy houses in the future, that they will have more expensive mortgages, so that these guys can get a house without paying for it?

  21. Citizen119 says:

    @William

    Read http://www.yourstrawman.com and you’ll see how NO money changes hands,
    so there is no enforceable CONTRACT with the bank.
    The bank, a Corporation, can only contract with another corporation, which
    is the ‘strawman’, it cannot contract with a human being. The strawman is
    your birth certificate, and is just a piece of paper, like a Corporation, which
    is a ‘Charter’. This the Law of the Sea, and predates even Common Law.

    Secondly, nobody ‘owns’ a house, you are a tenant. Read you’re deeds.
    All land belongs to the Crown. See what a beautiful scam it is?
    You pay interest on a nonexistent loan for 25 years, and at the end of it
    you ‘own’ nothing.
    Remember, the Judge sits on the ‘Bench’, which is Latin for BANK.

  22. evolutis says:

    @Danny Cunnington … thank you i learned a lot from your commentary

  23. John Robb says:

    @william

    The basic logic through your first five sentences is certainly good, well and sound, and I would be insane to “correct” you there. A bigger picture is being played out in the video though. Issues of how parties negotiate contract are at hand. A judicial system that increasingly allows fasttrack to foreclosure needs to be checked. Foreclosure benefits no one [local] and is not the only course of action [and certainly not the most preferable] to correct or resolve arrears. Eviction is also not the only resolve to foreclosure. Slowing the negotiation to a Constitution pace seems quite reasoble here.

    I will inject some personal insight though upon your sixth and last sentence. I will want to buy a house in the future. The only factor regarding “fair”ness I will be concerned with is market value or price. I’d prefer the prices to drop enough that I might pay cash. Even if I go with a loan, I’d prefer paying 6% on a 10-year $50k mortgage than 3% on a 30-year $100k mortgage. Reality for me is that any current wrench to the bloated machine of easy money/credit will benefit my prference in the future. Our monetary system [globally] has been unattended by sane hands for so long that it doesn’t take much to step back from individual contracts, see the bigger picture, and surmise that class-action negotiations might be in store.

  24. fionnsdragon says:

    obi wan kenobi

    I need to see your identification, this isnt the house you are looking for, move along…move along

    superb

  25. Greg says:

    One thing people don’t realise around the world. Is that The Irish people didn’t suddenly go broke. The Banks did. Irish people now have to bail out the Banks.

    We are being super taxed. Have no Banks lending yet the Banks have been recapitalized.

    The real message is that the Banks were given billions to write down loans. They haven’t done this.

    I’ve asked my re capitalised lender when they are passing over the money I have to payback to me. They say they have no plans….They are however letting thousands of staff go and are paying them many times over statutory. Where are they getting the money to do this I wonder!

  26. Eireannach says:

    As an Irish citizen myself, I will do everything in my power to make sure this video goes viral.

    PS. If that’s THE John Robb of Global Guerrillas, I’d like to salute you for all you do, many in my circle of friends discuss GG. To paraphrase William Blake,

    Onward to resilience,
    through the terrors and glories of the night.
    At the dawning of the new day,
    follow me with my plough!

  27. Vonda Bra says:

    @ Danny Cunnington | @ evoulits

    its so true!
    There is always so much (really a lot) to learn from your comments! :-)
    THANK YOU !!!
    VonLove

  28. Alex says:

    This is idiotic and pointless. The squatter is trying to say the sheriff is working for a private company when in fact he is a civil servant. The sheriff also told him he can contest in court. But the squatter wants to jabber jaw so he can live in the house for free.

  29. cowardlylion says:

    Hey Black Alex, that natural law is a motherfucker, ain’t it dude. It has a way of coming around every so often and biting the greedy hard in the ass. Fact is he didn’t break a law. The sheriff is acting on behalf of the bank in a transparent and direct way and if you think there isn’t a conflict of interest or collusion going on you are every bit the moron you sound like. Your disrespect of people defending a basic human right is telling of a fair amount of self-loathing. That must be a painful and angry mess to deal with everyday. I’m here to help. Your roll-over and take it attitude will be great to pound on in the next few months. Thanks for being here.

    …and for that spew you subjected us to the other day on Iran here is Rick Steves of all the fucking people visiting the place I believe two years ago. He dances the standard version of the Mossaddegh shuffle at one point but at least he got off his ass to show some of the faces you and the other bringers of peace and democracy via bombs and starvation propose to offer onto their cynical alter of sacrifice. I’m not seeing the monkeys pumping oil thing.

    Using hulu to avoid youtube’s buffers…

    http://www.hulu.com/watch/94075/rick-steves-europe-rick-steves’-iran

  30. Chervonets says:

    So basically Ireland had a revolution but the Queens laws stayed in place due to ignorance. And they have now started to counter this. So all banks gave mortgages under the Queens laws assuming it was enforceable. But it is not so all the banks will be holding the bag instead of the people.

    This is a major domino of the system when it goes!

  31. Helter Skelter says:

    You see it’s all the fault of the British

  32. Andy B says:

    I was struck by the civility of the conversation, on both partys’ side, including the sheriff, who was able to listen and respond, rather than call in a SWAT team.

    Keep up the good work, brother Irish.

  33. John Robb says:

    @Alex

    “Idiotic and pointless”? For whom? Certainly not for the family who, still by the way, occupies the home. Assuming they do contest something in court, it would be idiotic for them to willingly relinquish possession or occupancy before that contest is fully or adequately judged. They are NOT squatters. Squatting is a process of acquiring property that was previously public (or Queensland), virgin or abandonned. “Claim” remains a verb in jurisprudence. The family claimed the right to occupy the property when entering into contract for the transfer of possession and/or deed. The claim was judicially approved (long ago, past tense). The family is wise to not vacate until any new claim is satisfactorily approved. The sheriff’s reference to “contest in court” reveals that the contest is not yet resolved. Should the contest ultimately favor the new claim, the family will be granted reasonable time/means to vacate the property, and only after that could they be legally designated as trespassers [not squatters].

  34. Alex says:

    you have to let the bankrupcies happen at all levels to get the economy back in balance. The assets then can be reformed and the economy can re-emerge. This guy was wrong as well to bet his estate on some investment or to buy a car. Cancelling the debts of delinquent borrowers punishes those who save money and did not fall for easy money scams. The Irish have always been good at talking and short on doing.

  35. John Robb says:

    @Eireannach

    I cannot accept your salute as I am not the John Robb of GG, but I’ll salute you back anyway as I’m grateful to you for introducing me to such a fascinating blog [and man]. It’s right up my alley. Funny, [other]John Robb looks like my cousins. I did plan for years to attend Yale. I got distracted. Hmm, perhaps I’ve led a double life in my sleep… That would explain many things…

    I also applaud you for your choice of Blake. It fits well here in this resilient community gathered around Stacy and Max. As I see it, according to John Robb, the future of peace will likely find its other shoe as it ploughs through here…

    http://spiderjohn.com/maxed/oneshone.wma

    http://youtu.be/RnCga7HMpg0

  36. Bill says:

    @Andy B How do you know the SWAT team isn’t being called? This guy won the battle. Do you think the war’s over??? The Branch Davidians won a battle or two in Waco.

  37. Daidalos says:

    As an alcoholic, surely,
    A mortgage “contract” is worthless legally as the bank enters into the “contract” with counterfeit money that it creates when you sign the mortgage. Therefore all mortgage contracts are just toilet paper… A contract requires risk on principal, the principal being the House and the risk being the Finance. Banks take no risk cause they just create it out of thin air?

    Where’s my Worthington’s.

  38. Jayme says:

    Wonderful, but it requires an exceptional ability to persuade through argument as well as a great deal of knowledge. Max has a good knack for it but it is very clear how persistent one has to be against an ignorant army of state controlled officers executing illegal warrants. Most people would not be able to put up such an argument and would succumb to the tyranny. This is why there needs to be a few exceptional community leaders commanding these battles.

    It would be good if there were more awareness that educates common law for people who encounter such tactics. NONE of this appears through conventional mass media.

    http://freedomfromalldebt.com/

  39. Trevor says:

    I only came accross this last night and it made for fascinating viewing. Lets analyse it rationally and calmly from a legal point of view.

    Failure to pay a debt is not a criminal offence. In mortgage cases, this is a civil matter. It is an argument between 2 sides about whether a contract has been broken. The law in this area has nothing to do with what is morally right or just. As this is the case, there is no need to go into that issue. It is irrelevant.

    You are absolutely 100% correct; nobody has the right to enter your land/property except for certain clearly defined purposes (such as the garda in CRIMINAL matters, tv licence inspectors, environmental health etc). If somebody other than those individuals ask to enter your land/property you are quite within your rights to say no and request them to leave.

    You are correct to say that the constitution offers protection for this matter also. This whole area needs to be challenged.

    The sheriff has no legal right to enter on to your property.

    As no criminal offence has been committed by the property owner, the gardai have no right to enter your land. They can ask and you are perfectly entitled to say no. Furthermore, it could also be argued if they do enter your land without your permission, (gardai or sheriff) they have committed the tort of trespass, for which they can be held liable for in the courts.

    The separation of powers issue between the sheriff/registrar is another clear-cut case of a severe problem which has been allowed to quietly fester for years, simply because the main victims of the process were powerless individuals who hadn’t got the money to bring this to court.

    (I would also suspect that part of the reason for the relatively low number of reposessions is because the banks/courts know that there are major problems with the law here. The banks & government then spin this to give the appearance that they are acting fairly.)

    Once again, the main reason why they could get away with it for so long was because usually individuals who are in such a situation have little or no means to enforce their legal rights. It is too expensive to go to court.

    The law is selectively interpreted by the registrar/sheriff and because people have usually been traumatised or shocked by the situation they find themselves in, they feel intimidated by a delegation with the gardai in tow turning up on their doorsteps. They feel that they have two choices; either go along with it or else they do something silly which then transforms the issue into a criminal matter.

    I would also question the practice of the gardai being present in such cases. Although I am sure that sheriffs have been attacked in the past, the mere presence of the gardai serves to further intimidate the individual homeowner. The gardai have no authority to intervene unless a crime is committed during the process of the sheriff trying to enter your land (such as punching him). That’s it. If the guards do anything else they are probably acting unlawfully.

    The gardai, if they are to retain the consent and respect of the community in which they operate should be very careful not to allow themselves to be drawn into these matters. The gardai need to actively demonstrate that they are impartial and not take one side or the other of the argument.

    Once again, no crime has been committed through a failure to pay any debts. The gardai should not intervene unless a criminal offence is committed.

    The lesson is; keep calm, don’t be intimidated, have witnesses who stay cool, video everything (the guards have no power to stop you), expain your points clearly, consistently and repeat them over and over again (don’t swear). The sheriff may attempt to bamboozle you with documents and paperwork but don’t get drawn into an argument in which he sets the rules.

    The whole situation is basically a con trick based on intimidation and an illusion of legality. The simple fact is that the sheriff cannot enter your property unless you permit him to do so.

    That’s it.

Access The Max Keiser Podcast
Weekly Downloads, live Q & A Session and exclusive video posts from Max and Stacy

Subscribe Learn More
Buy Gold Online
Watch the latest Keiser Reports: